Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8149 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bheshaj Puri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up in the revised list.
Heard Sri Bheshaj Puri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
Vide order dated 04.02.2021, notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2. As per the office report dated 10.03.2021, a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 01.03.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party No. 2.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sanju, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 213 of 2020, under Sections 452, 376 (3) of I.P.C. & 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Patwaie, District Rampur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about three months. It is argued that the occurrence in the present case, is said to have taken place on 01.07.2020, whereas the first information report has been registered on 09.10.2020 It is argued that even, the medical examination report of the victim, does not support the prosecution case as the doctor has opined that no opinion of rape can be given. It is argued that in the first information report, the allegation is that rape was committed on the daughter of the first informant within the territory of District-Rampur, whereas the site plan, the copy of which is annexed at page 58 of the paper-book shows that the same to be committed within district of Bareilly. It is argued that as such, the place of occurrence in the present case, is highly doubtful. It is further argued that the applicant has been named as an accused which is because of malafide intentions as there was some dispute with regard to landed property regarding which the first informant had got her name mutated in the revenue records in the year 2018, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 20 of the affidavit. It is next argued that the first informant is habitual of lodging false complaints which is also evident from the fact that even previously, she has lodged a complaint against someone else which was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the concerned court. Paragraph 22 of the affidavit has been placed to buttress the said argument. It is argued that as such, the implication of the applicant is false and without any evidence with malafide intentions.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is dated 25.08.2020 which was moved after the first informant made hectic efforts of getting a first information report registered but failed in her attempt. It is argued that in so far as the opinion of the doctor in the medical examination is concerned, the same was conducted on 21.10.2020 which is after a period of more than three months as the incident in question is of 01.07.2020 and as such, the doctor could not give a definite opinion about rape. It is further argued that in so far as the question of place of occurrence is concerned, the victim was rustic villager and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was prepared by the lawyer and she being uneducated, signed on it and as such, the same also gets explained. It is argued that the victim is aged about 13 years and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated about the applicant of committing rape on her. It is argued that there is as such, no discrepancy in place of occurrence and even if the same is being tried to be taken use of by the applicant, the same will be a matter of trial. It is thus argued that in the present case, the consistent case of the prosecution from the first information report to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is of the applicant committing rape on the victim girl.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the victim is aged about 13 years of age. The medical examination of the victim was conducted after more than three months. The first information report has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The victim has in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated about the applicant of committing rape on her.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)